Law 3 Flashcards
How do international treaties address the death penalty?
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Protects right to life; bans “cruel/inhuman treatment” (but doesn’t explicitly abolish death penalty).
ICCPR (Article 6): Allows death penalty with restrictions, but encourages abolition (Article 6(6)).
American Convention: Permits death penalty only for most serious crimes, urges abolition.
Key Point: Global trend favors abolition, but Caribbean nations largely retain it.
What is the UN’s stance on the death penalty?
UN Human Rights Committee: Calls abolition “progress” for human rights.
General Assembly Resolutions: Repeatedly urges global moratoriums (2007, 2008, 2010).
Caribbean Exception: Consistently opposes abolition, citing sovereignty.
How did colonialism shape Caribbean death penalty laws?
British Model: Imposed pre-independence; influenced by European Convention (1950).
Saving Clauses: Preserved colonial-era laws even if they conflict with modern rights.
Privy Council’s Role: Limited executions via rulings (e.g., Pratt & Morgan).
Contrast: Post-colonial independence vs. retained colonial laws.
Which constitutional rights conflict with the death penalty?
◾Right to life (except via “due process”).
◾Protection from inhuman/degrading treatment (e.g., long death row delays).
◾Equality before the law (mandatory death penalty issues).
Example: Neville Lewis v AG (2000) – Death row delays can violate rights.
Which regions still actively use the death penalty?
Active: Belarus (Europe), USA, parts of Asia/Middle East.
Caribbean: Retains but rarely executes (e.g., Jamaica, Trinidad).
Abolitionists: 140+ countries (97 fully abolished).
Stat: Only 5 African countries executed people in 2012.
Why do Caribbean nations keep the death penalty despite global trends?
High Murder Rates: Seen as deterrent (e.g., Jamaica: 52.1 homicides/100,000 in 2010).
Public Support: Majority favors retention (politically sensitive).
Biblical Justification: “Eye for an eye” rhetoric (though debated).
Criticism: No evidence it reduces crime.
How has the Privy Council limited executions in the Caribbean?
Pratt & Morgan (1993):
>5 years on death row = “inhuman treatment” → commutation.
Mandatory Death Penalty Banned: Reyes v R (2002) – Judges need sentencing discretion.
“Worst of the Worst” Standard: Trimmingham v R – Only extreme cases qualify.
Impact: Effectively halted most executions.
What is the “saving clause” and how does it affect death penalty challenges?
Rule: Laws pre-dating independence are “saved” even if they violate modern rights.
Example: Matthew v State (2004) – Trinidad’s mandatory death penalty upheld as “saved.”
Exception: Amended laws lose protection (e.g., Jamaica post-1992).
Mnemonic: “Old Laws, New Problems.”
What are two ethical arguments against the death penalty?
Irreversible Error: Innocent people may be executed (e.g., DNA exonerations in the USA).
Moral Objection: UN Secretary-General (2015): “Death penalty is simply wrong.”
Caribbean Response: Sovereignty trumps international pressure.
How did Pratt & Morgan reshape death penalty enforcement in the Caribbean, and what was its global impact?
Holding: Executing prisoners after >5 years on death row = “inhuman treatment” (violates constitutional rights).
Presumption: Delays beyond 5 years require commutation to life imprisonment unless the state proves the delay wasn’t systemic.
Impact:
◾Halted executions in most Commonwealth Caribbean states.
◾Inspired global challenges to death row delays (e.g., India, Uganda).
Criticism: Caribbean governments argued it ignored local crime crises.
Key Quote: “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
How did Neville Lewis extend Pratt & Morgan, and why did it anger Caribbean governments?
Holding: Applied Pratt & Morgan as a strict rule (no discretion for delays >5 years).
Significance:
Blocked executions of 6 prisoners, forcing commutations.
Provoked backlash: Jamaica amended its constitution to override the 5-year rule.
Irony: A colonial court (Privy Council) limiting post-colonial states’ penal policies.
Why did Reyes abolish mandatory death sentences, and how did it redefine sentencing?
Holding: Mandatory death penalty = “inhuman treatment” (violates due process).
Reasoning: Judges must consider individual circumstances (e.g., mental state, crime severity).
Legacy:
Ended “one-size-fits-all” executions in Belize, St. Lucia, St. Kitts-Nevis.
Contrast: Trinidad/Barbados kept mandatory penalties via “saving clauses.”
How did Matthew v State expose the “saving clause” loophole, and what debate did it spark?
Holding: Upheld mandatory death penalty because it was pre-independence law (“saved” from constitutional challenge).
Dissent: Critics called this a “colonial relic” preserving inhuman punishment.
Aftermath: Trinidad still retains mandatory death penalty today.
How did Boyce & Joseph differ from Reyes, and what does it reveal about constitutional entrenchment?
Holding: Barbados’ mandatory death penalty remained valid (like Trinidad’s) due to:
◾Pre-independence origin ("saved").
◾No post-independence amendments to abolish it.
Paradox: Barbados later amended its constitution to comply with Reyes, showing Privy Council’s influence.
What is the “worst of the worst” standard, and how did Trimmingham limit executions?
Holding: Death penalty only for:
◾”Rarest of rare” cases (extreme brutality).
◾No possibility of rehabilitation.
Example: Trimmingham’s crime (gang murder) was deemed not extreme enough.
Impact: Effectually narrowed executions to near-zero.
